Are World Cup Hydration Breaks Really Killing Momentum? | OneFootball

Hydration breaks have been a hot topic at the 2026 World Cup, but how much have they actually been affecting games? We look into the numbers.

Anyone who didn’t follow football before this World Cup might wonder what all the fuss is about.

Three-minute hydration breaks have been introduced midway through each 45-minute half, in an addition to a high-tempo sport that could very feasibly be considered extremely sensible. In the heat of the red-hot North American summer, it might understandably be considered wise to pause and take on some water.

Football is one of the very few sports which doesn’t have natural breaks that are long enough to allow a full team to stop and gather their thoughts together. That might be something fans of other sports find strange, but for many long-time football watchers, the continuity and lack of disruption for 45 minutes are part of what makes it so captivating.

Hydration breaks at the 2026 World Cup have, therefore, not been everyone’s cup of tea (or water, perhaps). Some claim they are a money-generating addition to the game, with television viewers in many countries – but not the UK, notably – shown three minutes of advertisements during those stoppages. FIFA president Gianni Infantino has insisted “there is no additional revenue” for the organisation from these breaks.

As for the football, there has been a consistent feeling that these hydration breaks are affecting the flow of games. The main concern is that breaks in play can disrupt the progress of the team that is in the ascendancy and allow the other side to regroup just when things were getting difficult. Emma Hayes, the head coach of the US women’s team, has referred to them as “momentum breaks”.

The truth is that momentum swings naturally in football matches and always has done. There are breaks in play for injuries, substitutions, or when the ball goes out of play. And even without any interruption to play, a single moment, like a chance, a shot that is saved, a big tackle, or a foul, can spark a team into action. The fans can also play a role, with the roar of a home crowd spurring their players on.

But the idea of a drinks break ‘artificially’ affecting how a game would have otherwise ‘naturally’ flowed; that seems to be something that grates.

But is that actually happening? Are we seeing the momentum of 2026 World Cup games shift because of the hydration breaks?

The truth is, that’s impossible to answer with any certainty. There have been games where it has appeared as though momentum changed, though, and every time it happens, the belief is strengthened that the breaks are playing a role.

Before the first hydration break in the Netherlands’ 5-1 win over Sweden, for example, the Netherlands had four shots to Sweden’s one, and 1.34 xG to their opponents’ 0.03 xG.

Then, Graham Potter switched from five at the back to four, and between the end of the hydration break and half-time, his Sweden side outshot their opponents eight to one, with 0.44 xG to Netherlands’ 0.03.

There’s no doubt the game changed either side of the interruption in play; the stats prove as much, and the stoppage allowed Potter to implement his plan properly, with instructions given directly to his players, rather than passed on from the touchline.

But did it change because of the break? Sweden were 2-0 down by this point, and Potter’s tactical change might have had as much impact had he made it during a ‘normal’ first half. Game state surely played a part here as Sweden desperately pushed for a route back into the game.

Germany head coach, Julian Nagelsmann, suggested the hydration break midway through the first half of his side’s 7-1 win over Curaçao helped him clarify his messaging to his players as they adjusted to playing against their opponents’ diamond midfield shape.

“Very few teams do that anymore,” he said. “And we needed a bit of time. The water break was actually good to simply reiterate what we had already [spoken about].”

Germany generated 0.64 xG before the drinks break, and then 1.82 xG after it. It was 1-1 when the game was paused, and Germany went in at half-time 3-1 up.

Again, though, nobody can be certain that the break in play necessarily played a part. Germany, clearly a superior side to Curaçao, might well have scored two goals after the midway point of the first half, given the scores were level and they’d have wanted to find a lead before half-time.

There was also a noticeable shift in the second half of Switzerland vs Bosnia-Herzegovina. Switzerland had been on top for much of the game, but with the scores still goalless approaching the midway point in the second half, Bosnia were enjoying their best spell. They didn’t have tonnes of chances, but the game was being played in Swiss territory, with Bosnia having 34 touches in the final third (they’d had just 13 in the period before the hydration break in the first half).

Then came the break in play, and the game lurched in the other direction. Switzerland generated 1.67 xG after the break (including a late penalty), having had just 0.31 xG before it, and went on to win the match, almost inexplicably, 4-1. Bosnia had just five more final-third touches in the last quarter of the game.

Switzerland coach Murat Yakin said afterwards that he purposefully waited for the hydration break to make substitutions “because then the opponent can’t react immediately.”

Yakin made a triple change at the break. One of his subs scored twice (Johan Manzambi), and another scored once and set up another (Rubén Vargas).

“Maybe that was the edge we had. We brought in very fast players, and our opponent couldn’t run [with them], and it opened up gaps,” he said, suggesting substitutions made at the hydration break could be more effective than in normal play. However, it’s also true that those alterations might have changed the game whether or not there had been a hydration break.

Jordan midfielder Amer Jamous said after the 3-1 defeat to Austria that the drinks break had interrupted when his team “were controlling the game.” Jordan conceded twice after the second-half hydration break.

However, although they had more xG before the break than after, it was hardly as if they were dominating. They’d had 0.15 xG to Austria’s 0.3 before the pause in play, so the fact Austria, the better team, pulled away can’t be attributed solely to the presence of a hydration break.

It’s also worth noting that it’s normal for there to be more action in the second half of each half in any football match than in the first. That has been the case at this World Cup, with more shots, goals and xG after the hydration break in each half than before it. But there is no reason to believe that the breaks in play are causing that increase.

Games in the Premier League in 2025-26 followed exactly the same pattern, and they had no hydration breaks. In fact, those matches saw more extreme increases after the midway point in each half (based on the time on the clock) than games so far at this World Cup.

World Cup halves are split by the hydration break; Premier League halves are divided in two by the time on the clock

Game state plays a part, and the score is much more likely to be level in the first quarter of a game than in the second, meaning both sides may play more cautiously. And in the final quarter, everyone is far more likely to risk throwing players forward in search of a goal than they would at any other stage, which naturally leads to more chances, and more extreme momentum shifts.

There have been plenty of games at the 2026 World Cup that have appeared to change because of hydration breaks, but there have been far more that have experienced no change whatsoever. More often than not, there is no discernible difference between the flow of games before and after the breaks; it’s just that when there is a shift, we are noticing it more than we did when there were no hydration breaks.

But there can be no doubt that watching matches at this World Cup is a very different experience to what we’re used to, and the hydration breaks play a huge part in that. Given the reaction to them, there doesn’t seem to be much chance of them becoming the convention in any competition other than the World Cup.

Add Opta Analyst as a preferred source by clicking here.

Subscribe to our football newsletter to receive exclusive weekly content. You should also follow our social accounts over on X, Instagram, TikTok and Facebook.